On the heels of Fred’s perplexing choice for campaign manager we get a editorial written by him that puts me back into his camp.
The Framers drew their design for our Constitution from a basic understanding of human nature. From the wisdom of the ages and from fresh experience, they understood the better angels of our nature, and the less admirable qualities of human beings entrusted with power.
The Framers believed in free markets, rights of property and the rule of law, and they set these principles firmly in the Constitution. Above all, the Framers enshrined in our founding documents, and left to our care, the principle that rights come from our Creator and not from our government.
We developed institutions that allowed these principles to take root and flourish: a government of limited powers derived from, and assigned to, first the people, then the states, and finally the national government. A government strong enough to protect us and do its job competently, but modest and humane enough to let the people govern themselves. Centralized government is not the solution to all of our problems and – with too much power – such centralization has a way of compounding our problems. This was among the great insights of 1787, and it is just as vital in 2007.
The federalist construct of strong states and limited federal government put in place by our Founders was intended to give states the freedom to experiment and innovate. It envisions states as laboratories in competition with each other to develop ideas and programs to benefit their people, to see what works and what does not.
He then notes how, over the last few decades, our government has ignored the ideals of federalism, even though federalism responds better to the will of the people:
Federalism is not an 18th century notion. Or a 19th century notion. It retains its force as a basic principle in the 21st century, because when federalism is ignored, accountability, innovation, and public confidence in government at all levels suffer.
It is as true today as it ever was: the closer a government is to its people, the more responsive it is to the felt needs of its constituencies. Too often, however, state and local leaders have to answer to federal bureaucrats first and their constituents second. When the federal government mandates a program that states and localities are forced to implement, or when a federal grant program is created to fund a specific state or community need, it blurs the lines of accountability.
[…]I’ve been saying it for years, and it bears repeating: what works in Tennessee may not work in Nebraska and may be different from what succeeds in Oregon. That’s why President Ronald Reagan compared federalism to letting a thousand sparks of genius in the states and communities around this country catch fire. It’s not a perfect system, but it works a lot better than the alternative of central planning.
We need to allow local authorities to apply their own good ideas and use their own good judgment. Each state can find its own way, learning from the successes and failures of the others. There is a wealth of creativity and initiative out there in the states, and often the best ideas in Washington started out as state initiatives.
[…]When you hold firm to the principles of federalism, there’s another advantage: our federal government can better carry out its own defining responsibilities – above all else, the security of our nation and the safety of our citizens. Sometimes I think that our leaders in Washington try to do so many things, in so many areas, that they lose sight of their basic responsibilities.
He then lays out how we can go back to the way it should be:
A good first step would be to codify the Executive Order on Federalism first signed by President Ronald Reagan. That Executive Order, first revoked by President Clinton, then modified to the point of uselessness, required agencies to respect the principle of the Tenth Amendment when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It preserved the division of responsibilities between the states and the federal government envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. It was a fine idea that should never have been revoked. The next president should put it right back in effect, and see to it that the rightful authority of state and local governments is respected.
The man gets it. The federal usurpation of state powers is at the root of many of our problems today and his fix is quick and easy.
See author page
We should also repeal that turn of the 20th century Progressive Era experiment that we know as the 17th amendment. The one that changed Senators from being appointed by the state legislatures to being directly elected. I say we need to go BACK to having the Senate appointed by the state legislatures as the founders originally intended it to be.
Having them directly elected has turned the hearings process into a political circus and broken the confirmation system. Repeal the 17th amendment.
If you think that a campaign MANAGER reflects his policy views then you should be worried. I’m not.
We could debate the 17th Amendment all year. Who should Senators be beholding to, the state legislature or the people? Was just doing some light reading, Constitutional case law, and it seems that the courts have pretty much stripped away any thing of consequence in the 10th Amendment.
This Spencer Abraham thing still has me befuddled.
Tom
The people already have their say in the House of Representatives. The states should have their say in the Senate. It would end unfunded mandates, it would also end billions of dollars wasted in Senate campaigns and grand standing and show boating. People might then get selected to the Senate for the quality of their mind and quantity of experience not the quality of their smile and quantity of their campaign fund.
And if you think that a campaign MANAGER does not interject his views into a campaign then I guess you shouldn’t worry. I believe the opposite. A campaign MANAGER is an important part of a persons run for President and will have alot of pull during the race. For him to give this much power to someone with questionable views worries me.
Did a little reading on this appointment. It seems Abraham was instrumental in rebuilding the GOP in Michigan after some one screwed the pooch. He also has the contacts inside the beltway. Maybe Fred wants him to get the Congressional GOP’s act together. The day to day campaign manager is Randy Enright, the executive director of the party in Florida and he held the same post in Iowa. Just wish he would announce and let us poor folk know what he’s up to.
Tom
You’re singing my song, crosspatch. As far as Fred – imagine that; a candidate that acknowledges the existence of a Tenth Amendment. Now, if we can only convince the Supreme Court there’s a Tenth Amendment – and a Ninth.
In days past, as problems mounted, expanding the federal government probably seemed logical. Information flow was slow and limited; someone, somewhere had to take charge. With today’s communication networks, a return to federalism is much more realistic and seeing the growth of the federal government, necessary. If the states are the labs for experimentation, it is now possible to know what direction those experiments have taken. The Internet already places federal officials under a microscope and may help reduce the scope of the federal government. While not germane to the federalism issue, the defeat of the immigration bill shows the power of modern communications. I believe it can also help us return to a more balanced system of governance.